A leading scientist has made an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission over an “inaccurate, misleading and distorted” newspaper story about a supposed mistake made by the UN’s panel on global warming.

He says the story is misleading because it gives the impression that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made a false claim in its 2007 report that reduced rainfall could wipe out up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. The Sunday Times story was widely followed up across the world, and, in the wake of the discovery of a high-profile blunder by the IPCC over the likely melting of Himalayan glaciers, helped fuel claims that the IPCC was flawed and its conclusions unreliable.

Lewis said: “There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting.”

The Sunday Times piece was originally headlined “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim”, though this was later changed on the website version. It said the 40% destruction figure was based on an “unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise”.

…

Lewis said he was contacted by the Sunday Times before the article was published and told them the IPCC’s statement was “poorly written and bizarrely referenced, but basically correct”. He added that “there is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting that the Amazon is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall”. He also sent the newspaper several scientific papers that supported the claim, but were not cited by that section of the IPCC report.

…

Lewis also complains that the Sunday Times used several quotes from him in the piece to support the assertion that the IPCC report had made a false claim. “Despite repeatedly stating to the Sunday Times that there is no problem with the sentence in the IPCC report, except the reference.”

======================

Heh. This must be the first time Lewis has been interviewed by the press. From experience I can tell you that in matters of science, the message is often muddled by the time it gets to print. Sometimes this is intentional if the reporter has a specific agenda, but sometimes it simply is a combination of poor understanding of the subject and editorial considerations such as column space. Often a story as submitted will get cut down to size by the copy editor, changing the meaning by leaving out key details.

I don’t know if that is the case here, but it will be interesting to see what the PCC does.

Case in point. Two weeks ago I was interviewed by the Economist Energy and Environment Editor, Oliver Morton, for a story about the surface record. I completed four questions, and included details, but in bite sized form hoping they would get into the story because they were concise points. The reporter even asked if his assessment of my story about NCDC’s treatment of me, mentioned here was correct.

What resulted for days of back and forth and carefully providing answers that I thought would be concise enough was this one sentence in response, even thought he reporter agreed in the email exchange that I had been “poorly treated” by NCDC.

A recent analysis by Matthew Menne and his colleagues at America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, argued that trends calculated from climate stations that surfacestation.org found to be poorly sited and from those it found well sited were more or less indistinguishable. Mr Watts has problems with that analysis, and promises a thorough study of the project’s findings later.

Heh. Such balance and accuracy in reporting by the Economist.

It was certainly not worth the effort I extended with the reporter, so I know how Mr. Lewis feels. Will I lodge a complaint with PCC for misrepresentation? No.

On that note, the rebuttal paper to Menne et al is looking better and better.

Excellent! Finally someone is standing up to the misrepresentations of science reported in the press. There are some shockers in the Telegraph too, for example the report on the recent Geophys. Res. Lett. paper on Amazon drought. I don’t think the journalist even bothered to read the paper.

Before anything could be said about the Amazon forests and before anyone could say anything about them , there is one point to be clearly specified: It must be consulted with the real owners of the amazon forests, the countries involved, if this is not the case, then it would be flagrant foreing intervention and meddling into internal affairs of those national states.
International NGOs have many times tried to attain an international agreement for declaring the amazon basin and forests as a “patrimony of humanity”, undoubtedly with the purpose of making big business with the so called carbon credits and carbon shares. This has been strongly rejected in the near past and will be undoubtedly strongly rejected in the future.
Do whatever you want to your OWN countries and your OWN people but just keep your hands off from the amazonian countries.

Direct quote from Simon Lewis, Jan 2010, “The Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall. In my opinion the Rowell and Moore report should not have been cited; it contains no primary research data.”

Quote from Simon Lewis, Mar 2010, “it’s important to protect my reputation in terms of providing accurate scientific information to the public.”

Obviously they can’t be the same Simon Lewis’s, one is a tropical forest expert based in Leeds, England, and the other is a tropical rainforest expert based in Leeds, England.

It doesn’t take a professional Climate Scientist to understand: “there is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting that the Amazon is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall”

In other words, “a rainforest needs rain” But that’s a long way from demonstrating that man-made CO2 causes reduction in rain. You could just as easily say that increased temperatures increase ocean evaporation, and that increases rainfall. But you would have to prove that too.

“He added that “there is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting that the Amazon is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall”. What the hell is this supposed to mean? I can “suggest” that the moon is made of green cheese! That doesn’t mean it is.

Can’t wait for your the rebuttal paper to Menne et al. When is it out?

REPLY: We are finishing up the final analysis sections. It’s late becuase we had to scrap the first paper, and re-purpose towards a response to Menne et al thanks to their professional discourtesy. – A

“poorly written and bizarrely referenced”, I’m sorry – does not constitute “correct”, except maybe in Johnny Depp’s recent movie. I think Lewis’s “Lobster Bisque Dance” does, however, do justice to Carroll’s work.
I see his point, though, that the Amazon is “vulnerable to reductions in rainfall”. Can’t argue with that “factual analysis”- my houseplants do not do well when I don’t water them!

It’s the 40% figure that was pulled out of the thin air (rather, the ozone-replete air inside the IPCC’s desktop computers)!

Isn’t GW suppose to produce higher temperature, more evaporation from the 75% of the globe’s surface, (vapour being very efficient GH gas driving temperatures even higher), more humidity and consequently more condensation, more precipitation, or that was explanation for the extra snowfall this winter. Isn’t GW meant to cause a ‘greenhouse’ effect? Any of these scientists ever entered a greenhouse?

Years ago I was interviewed by a newspaper reporter who wanted to do a story on an article I had written. I was shocked when I read the story. When I complained to my boss about the mistakes the reporter had made, he agreed the story was inaccurate, but thought it was more interesting than my article.

It seems to me that some people need to be VERY careful when they complain about inaccurate reporting. How many blatantly inaccurate media reports have we all seen?

The media reminds me of a manager I used to work under… his stories were all very plausible until the day I heard him tell a story about something where I WAS THERE… and that was the day I realized he was a pathological liar. His embellishment and subtle alteration completely changed the spirit of what happened.

Maybe everyone who believes “the media” is somehow unbiased and honest needs that kick in the backside that wakes them up.

Reading the piece it is absolutely clear that this chap is entirely without any position or opinion on the matter, at all, in any way, er, to he should make and excellent fist of peer review. Well, as good as one can expect from a scientifically trained academic with a BIG oil background who is currently involved with Carbon Capture and Storage technology along with other ‘renewables’ interests.

Has the word ‘impartial’ suddenly become inverted in meaning – like, say, ‘bad’ when it means ‘good’ in local or age group based patois?

Thanks for the link to the Economist.This reminds me why after years of subscribing I let my subscription lapse. Their writers are people who know much(sometimes) but understand nothing (almost all the time).

I have reread the article and do not see what complaints Simon Lewis can have. It may be a fact that comments can be distorted or truncated, but there is no getting away from the fact that the IPCC used NGO propaganda instead of peer reviewed reports. It’s no use crying that Lewis quoted other reports. The Times were not required to quote that. What matters is what the IPCC reported which was an unacceptable disgrace. I suspect that Lewis is back peddling from his own condemnation of the IPCC in the face of peer review from his own warmist colleagues who will have reminded him that it is the cause that counts rather than anything frivolous like scientific integrity and honesty. And how can Lewis complain that Leake gave the impression that the IPCC made a false claim that 40% of the forest could be wiped out. Of course it was a false claim. I shall say it myself. It is a completely unsubstantiated and false claim that the IPCC made, so report me to the press complaints commission for writing these remarks.

To Jonathan Leake I would say, don’t be intimidated by this very powerful movement and publicity machine. Stand by your guns and continue your great work of true investigative journalism in exposing the unacceptable excesses of the IPCC, such as the Himalayan melting scare which you also exposed. And just remember where your friends and the truth are and stop sitting on the Global Warming fence with statements like “even though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong.”

So-called Climate Science is not an empirical discipline but a post-hoc classification exercise akin to botany. The Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. relies on deceit, manipulation, outright fabrication because there are no experiments to replicate: Since “climatology” occurs in spuriously adjusted hindsight, “peer review” becomes complicit in propagating abusive ideological fraud in bad faith, under false pretenses, for the purpose of riding a corrupt grant-monies gravy train.

Warmists are sell-outs to hyper-partisan Big Government, whose corrupt politicians and self-aggrandizing regulatory apparatchiks call their tune. Would that disinterested researchers of integrity had more 1/3500th of Warmists’ financing from any source… but for decades an academic/media/political Gresham’s Law has acted to drive “good science” out of general circulation.

Over time, of course, the truth will out. Nature in fact cares nothing for the fatuous Pachauri or credentialed poseurs assiduously blighting everything they touch. As Planet Earth enters on a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum presaging the overdue end of our current 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch, global populations will discover that Warmists’ true agenda is a Luddite sociopathic war on industrial/technological civilization in itself. The sooner scrabrous political elites default to zero in disgrace, the better for everyone concerned.

It’s been shown in the recent paper that the Amazon forest is remarkably resilient even during extreme reductions of precipitation that cover the whole year. He agrees that the references pointed to advocacy groups, and so on. Do I misunderstand that he is just a chicken little demagogue? Does he differ from the fraudsters at RealClimate.ORG or others?

I really don’t understand where the compassion towards him comes from. He hasn’t been harmed in any way. He has just been ignored and he should have been.

Lewis said: “There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting.”

The AGW pushers have been waging a war of disinformation for years and have ignored/chastised people asking for careful and accurate scientific reporting. They need to remember, as my Mom likes to say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

So let me get this straight. If it stops raining in a tropical rain forest the rain forest will die. OK, seems a tautology.

And, if we have global warming (oops) climate change then the rainfall might decrease, stay the same or increase. And if we don’t have global climate change the rainfall might decrease, stay the same, or increase. Therefore we need to worry about global climate change because the rain might decrease and the forest will die.

So when the Times says that maybe the final conclusion is a bit suspect and not worthy of alarm, they got something wrong and the “science” was misrepresented? I guess that is where I get confused.

Looks like a gold mine of false or misleading claims on that one page alone.
From AR4 WGII Chapter 1:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4.html
“The change in temperature and cloud-base in these forests could have substantial effects on the diversity and composition of species. For example, in the cloud forest of Monteverde Costa Rica, these changes are already happening. Declines in the frequency of mist days have been strongly associated with a decrease in population of amphibians (20 of 50 species) and probably also bird and reptile populations (Pounds et al., 1999).” I’m surprised they didn’t mention the extinction of the Golden Toad, a much-touted victim of global warming.
What it conveniently omits is the fact that 2 years later another research team, headed by R.O Lawton demonstrated that the actual culprit was the extensive deforestation of the lowland areas in previous years, leaving only 18% of the original vegetation by 1992. Oops.

The only way to get an accurately reported interview with the press is to insist on reviewing the final copy before it goes to press (or the file server these days). In no time at all you will find yourself not bothered by reporters any more.

“Lewis said: “There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting.”

It reminds me of that remark made by activist Jo Abbess to Roger Harrabin over a BBC article. She let it be known that if Harrabin didn’t change his wording she would bring it to the attention of “some climate scientists” who would clearly put him right. Both remarks have a clear threat of repercussions – in Lewis’ case, the word “repercussion” is used explicitly.

Is Lewis even correct in his complaint? In the question of vulnerability of the Amazon to drought, he makes an oblique reference to a “wealth of data” to back this up. In a court of law, I would favour The Times because they were only reporting the fact that the IPCC report cited a non peer reviewed article by WWF which when traced to its source, was related to logging, not climate change. So essentially, The Times are correct to say what they said. The fact that there may exist other papers which the IPCC did not reference is immaterial to the fact.

Still, it’s interesting to see how the alarmists react to getting a taste of their own medicince.

Dan in California (10:09:20) :
It doesn’t take a professional Climate Scientist to understand: “there is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting that the Amazon is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall”

In other words, “a rainforest needs rain” But that’s a long way from demonstrating that man-made CO2 causes reduction in rain. You could just as easily say that increased temperatures increase ocean evaporation, and that increases rainfall. But you would have to prove that too.

We all know how dry it was when it was hotter and dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Lewis is a cry baby. Must be funded by Baby Oil. If he wants to become honest, we will all have to wait 30-50 years to see if the claims on the Amazon were true or not. He is in no position to prove his claims about drought, destruction or disappearnce of the Amazon.

Over the past 40 years I have been interviewed willingly dozens of times by reporters (for both print and broadcast) as it related to my politically-incorrect profession and my politically-incorrect activities in that profession. (I was a conservative minister.) In my opinion, only once did the resulting story even closely approximate what I had said or done.

However, the worst news report was when the local ABC news station in Orlando reported that I, the pastor of a local church, had been arrested for a sex crime. The problem was, it was a different minister from a different church. Yet, after pleading in person with the news director, he refused to issue a correction on the story even though he acknowledged that it was completely inaccurate.

Needless to say, I have a VERY low opinion of reporters. Heck, I even have a higher opinion of lawyers and politicians.

Shortly after that article was published David Nussbaum of the WWF-UK wrote a letter to the times which was published. In it Nussbaum plainly admits that the claim the IPCC appropriated from ‘Global Review of Forest Fires’ concerns the Brazilian rainforest not all of it, and that until a few hours before The Times published their piece the claim the IPCC appropriated *was* unsubstantiated.(And had been for about a decade)

Had the IPCC checked the references in the WWF report they would have come to the same conclusion certain bloggers did – that the claim presented in ‘Global Review of Forest Fires’ was unsubstantiated. That is not to say it is incorrect, just that there was no reference to other material to substantiate the claim. It is also impossible to avoid the fact that the claim refers to Brazil not the whole Amazonian rainforest, of which the Brazilian portion is only about half.

When the IPCC started making their claim about 40% of Amazonian rainforests being at risk the WWF report that underpinned it had never made that claim nor had a reference to substantiate what it did actually say. With the WWF’s exceedingly late correction the WWF claim is now substantiated but the IPCC’s claim still was unsubstantiated and bogus as even with the WWF correction *’Global Review of Forest Fires’ does not say what the IPCC claimed it did*.

Beware the Biologists. Dissappearing toads and Amphibians is grist for the AGW mill. Once AGW moves from the Climate Depts. to the Biology dept. We’ll never win no matter how many digits we cut off. If it isn’t amphibians, then it’s butterflys getting lost, and roses not smelling right, and ‘species dissappearing’, hive collapse, and………………. We can beat arguments based on climate data (or lack therof) with analysis of the same data(if they’ll provide it), but Biological arguments will have to be falsified by biological arguments in their minds.

Brian G Valentine (10:07:50): “Amazon rain forest” exists because humans did – nothing. It developed as natural evolution of flora and fauna.

Except of course for the humans who have been living there for the last 10,000+ years, building cities, canals, causeways, and mounds, and impacting and altering the flora, fauna, and soils across the entire breadth of Amazonia. But not counting those humans, yeah the development has been purely “natural”.

Henry chance (12:43:22) : Or as Lord Monckton calls them: “Bed-wetters”, people who unvoluntarily pee on getting scared by the hideous prophet who came from the damned nether world, AL “baby” Gore, the wettest among wetters.

25 March: Times of India: Post-IPCC gaffe, govt seeks changes in panel ops
The note is bound to be seen as a veiled criticism of the panel that has been under attack for producing sub-standard reports..
Environment
minister Jairam Ramesh has written to the InterAcademy Council, the institution requested by the UNSG to carry out the evaluation and suggest substantive changes in the workings of IPCC, whose reports become the scientific basis for UN negotiations on the vexed issue.
While the government had backed Pachauri, who also heads The Energy and Resource Institute, there has always been disquiet in official circles about the process followed by the UN panel in churning out ‘assessment reports’. The government has now officially taken note of the internal criticism and asked for, besides other things, to put an end to the ‘inbreeding’ in IPCC with a single scientist or group of scientists hogging space in the document at the cost of alternate and sometimes contrasting science from authors with differing views….http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Post-IPCC-gaffe-govt-seeks-changes-in-panel-ops/articleshow/5720517.cms

24 March: Newsweek: Sharon Begley: The Real Climate Scandal
Imagine another IPCC mistake. Where’s the outrage when the agency lowballs the threat?
Before this turns into my own little Wellesian War of the Worlds, I have to stop this parody, for which I am indebted to physicist and oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. In a post on the RealClimate blog, he makes a crucial point about the ongoing climate-change backlash: by putting all the focus on how mainstream climate science may have exaggerated the threat of global warming, we’re in real danger of ignoring how the threat has been lowballed.
So, just to set the record straight on sea-level rise. The IPCC’s worst-case scenario forecasts a sea-level rise of 26 to 59 centimeters (10 to 23 inches) by the end of this century. But that is based on a temperature rise of 5.2 degrees Celsius—whereas the IPCC itself said that temperatures might rise 6.4 degrees Celsius. By lowballing the possible temperature increase, the IPCC reduced the estimate of sea-level rise by six inches, Rahmstorf calculates.
Second, the IPCC chose a date of 2095, not 2100. Picking a date five years sooner reduced the projected sea rise by another two inches…http://www.newsweek.com/id/235366

same sharon begley:
27 August: Newsweek: Sharon Begley: China and India will pay
Though others started global warming
The Himalayas have been warming three times as fast as the world average, with the result that their glaciers are shrinking more rapidly than anywhere else and could disappear by 2035…http://www.newsweek.com/id/213967

25 March: The Hindu: India suggests RTI for climate change bodies
Introduce the “Right to Information” to the U.N.’s climate change system, India has suggested to the body (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) charged with bringing credibility and accountability to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), the climate science panel which has been in the eye of a storm over the last few months.
India wants the IPCC to make greater efforts to enhance the participation of developing country scientists to improve the geographical balance of its reports. Every IPCC report should include a separate chapter including all divergent views. In fact, the entire draft report should be sent to all known “climate sceptics” during the review process, says the Indian note.
It also suggests an extra tier of scrutiny to review the “conclusions” emerging from the facts, in order to ensure objectivity, especially with regard to the influential Summary for Policymakers.
These are some of the suggestions contained in a note prepared by the Union Ministry for Environment and Forests, and sent to the co-chairs of the Inter Academy Council, a group of eminent scientists who have been asked to review the IPCC’s processes…
India called for complete transparency. Everything — from the CVs of the scientists selected and rejected as experts, to all the literature cited in the reports, to all data and assumptions used for running climate models and projections — should be made available in the public domain on the IPCC website….ETChttp://beta.thehindu.com/news/article303923.ece

If I understand this right the Lewis character is a true agw believer who thinks there’s a war raging, but not that he’s doing any kind of fighting, for anything but by fueling his own delusions by supplying obvious blanks to the supposed vanguard of anthropogenic journalist templars way way in front of himself.

So basically his just another climate bob.

Looney toons filter off.

But I think it’s not just me who finds it rather hilarious that these self proclaimed greenie heros always asks for proper detail at the same time they’re shelling out blank generalizations themselves.

After having served in an excellent Police Force for 28 years I retired knowing one one truism about reporters: you cannot trust them at all. They are vultures preying on any mishap which might befall any member of the public. Each and every vulture has some sort of agenda; being anti-Police is always a good one. Any remark or comment made by an Officer was warped, twisted and bent to prove that the Police lived to beat up on people, framed anyone who came their way and ate babies for dinner.
I rapidly learned that the only response to give any “reporter” was to urge said person to depart. I usually used Anglo-Saxon terminology in order to make my meaning clear.
The Third Estate? They and their atitude towards rectitude in their duties died many years ago.

You mean to say that climate isn’t static? It changes? Are you also trying to tell me that climate isn’t universally the same everywhere? That it may be linked to weather? That climate isn’t always benign and never was? OMG!
With BILLION$ of Carbon and other bank scam bucks riding on the necessity of the global continuation of the hoax of CCT or CLIMATE CHANGE TERRORI$M, the mean, lean, greenwashed WARMI$T$ are proving to be expedient, opportunistic, and ruthless. AT this point in light of a serious credibility problem that has been given internet wings, this gang are stuck deep in the quicksand of “the means justifies the ends” logic, and will continue to use and do whatever it takes to push back against this irreversible exposure and to hide the decline of this hoax:
Check this one out: Chris Horner writes:
A “tipping point” appears to be at hand for James Hansen, the longtime Al Gore adviser and godfather of the modern global warming movement.

Hansen now seems so disgusted with the conditions of his employment — on the taxpayer dime — that he no longer sees the conditions as acceptable.

James Hansen writes:

“Somehow we have to do a better job of communicating. The tricks being used by people supporting denial and business-as-usual are recognizably dirty, yet effective. We are continually burdened by sweeping FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, which reduce our ability to do science and write it up (perhaps this is their main objective), a waste of tax-payer money. Our analyses are freely available on the GISS web site as is the computer program used to carry out the analysis and the data sets that go into the program.

The material that we supplied to some recent FOIA requests was promptly posted on a website, and within minutes after that posting someone found that one of the e-mails included information about how to access Makiko Sato’s password-protected research directory on the GISS website (we had not noticed this due to the volume of material). Within 90 minutes, and before anyone else who saw this password information thought it worth reporting to GISS staff, most if not all of the material in Makiko’s directory was purloined by someone using automated “web harvesting” software and re-posted elsewhere on the web. The primary material consisted of numerous drafts of webpage graphics and article figures made in recent years.

It seems that a primary objective of the FOIA requestors and the “harvesters” is discussions that they can snip and quote out of context. On the long run, these distortions of the truth will not work and the public will realize that they have been bamboozled. Unfortunately, the delay in public understanding of the situation, in combination with the way the climate system works (inertia, tipping points) could be very detrimental for our children and grandchildren. The public will need to put more pressure on policymakers, enough to overcome the pressure from special financial interests, if the actions needed to stabilize climate are to be achieved.”

I urge all here interested in the real motivations behind the AGW fraud to visit the ‘EUREFERENDUM’ website.
See how the spiders web of mutually linked interests of dozens of groups control the AGW narrative and spread that narrative throughout the world.

AP (dpa): Winter’s end prediction for Hong Kong 60 years out, scientists say
Hong Kong scientists admitted Wednesday they were 60 years out when they predicted global warming and urbanization would bring an end to winter days by 2030..
Even if urbanization was frozen at 2006 levels, there would be no more winter days by 2050, scientists concluded, basing their findings on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In comments reported by RTHK, observatory director Lee Bun-Ying said the new projection of 2090 was based upon further research and “more detailed data.”
The IPCC, set up by the United Nations, has come under fire in recent months over alleged inaccuracies in its fourth assessment report, which was used as a basis for the Hong Kong projections…http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/international-27/126941902369020.xml&storylist=international

As others have done, this is a case of having to go back to first principles:

1. No argument: If there are prolonged drought conditions, parts of the Amazon forest will die.

2. When did this last happen?

3. Answer: During the repeated ice ages of the past two million years (the last one ended around 12,000 years ago). The tropical rain forests almost disappeared. Why? Because lower temperatures mean less evaporation and therefore less rain.

4. Higher temperatures – if they happen – mean more evaporation and therefore more rain in nearly all tropical regions.

5. This means – subject of course to MacDonalds’ farmers and/or peasants chopping the trees down – that the rain forests will expand.

Remember Simon Lewis comes from a minor UK university and has to state the official AGW line in order to keep his job. Any divergence from orthodox doctrine is instantly punishable – kind of like in a communist or fascist system.

For confirmation of the above, ask any geologist in the private sector.

This sounds like another salvo in the CAGW push-back to Climatgate. Levelling lawsuits at skeptics probably sounds like an excellent strategy to the alarmists, but I really hope it blows up in their faces.

Claiming that the facts are right but the citation is wrong is ridiculous. Why didn’t the IPCC use the proper, peer-reviewed citations in the first place? Why did they select an advocacy piece instead? This is looking curiouser and curiouser.

Look guys, our National Academy of Sciences here in the UK, the Royal Society, says that every single change to climate, no matter how small, no matter in which direction, whether warmer or cooler, whether more violent or less violent, whether higher precipitation or lower is ALWAYS dangerous. All natural variations to climate are by definition Dangerous Climate Change. They put out a policy statement before the Copenhagen Summit: ‘Preventing dangerous climate change':

The second sentence in the policy document says “There is no such thing as ‘safe’ climate change.”

So, by this definition ALL changes of climate, natural or otherwise are by ipso facto “Dangerous Climate Change”. This is affirmed later in the document: “Any level of climate change will be dangerous…”

So, next time you hear the Royal Society, or Ed Miliband, or any other climate scientist using the term ‘Dangerous Climate Change’ (which they are consciously doing more and more, as they are being coached to do), remember that, by the definition of the UK National Academy of Sciences, even the smallest natural variations are classed as ‘dangerous’.

That this is utterly fallacious or meaningless is obvious by considering that the climate 20, 50, 100 years ago was different from today, and will be different in the future whether man is on the planet or not, so by the definition of the Royal Society they must have been and must always be ‘dangerously’ different climates as well. In fact all climates at all times in all places must be classified as being in the throes of ‘dangerous’ change. There is no point in history when there has ever been anything other than ‘dangerous climate change’.

So, it doesn’t matter whether any changes in precipitation have any effect or not on the Amazon rainforest, or whether the cause of the change is anthropogenic or natural, it will always be Dangerous Climate Change, and that mantra will be impressed into the brains of this generation along with the deliberately fallacious connection to mankind. Such is brainwashing.

As others have done, this is a case of having to go back to first principles:

1. No argument: If there are prolonged drought conditions, parts of the Amazon forest will die.

2. When did this last happen?

3. Answer: During the repeated ice ages of the past two million years (the last one ended around 12,000 years ago). The tropical rain forests almost disappeared. Why? Because lower temperatures mean less evaporation and therefore less rain.

4. Higher temperatures – if they happen – mean more evaporation and therefore more rain in nearly all tropical regions.

5. This means – subject of course to MacDonalds’ farmers and/or peasants chopping the trees down – that the rain forests will expand.

Remember Simon Lewis comes from a minor UK university and has to state the official AGW line in order to keep his job. Any divergence from orthodox doctrine is instantly punishable – kind of like in a communist or fascist …

For confirmation of the above, ask any geologist in the private sector.

But we all know that private sector geologists are in the pay of Big Oil.

Climate Science is discipline akin to astronomy. The Coldist Gang of McIntyre, McKitrick, Watts, et al. relies on deceit, manipulation, outright fabrication because they have not done any experiments to replicate the science: Since “climatology” occurs in a scientific process with “peer review”, which the Black Gang have published almost nothing under, they become complicit in propagating abusive ideological fraud in bad faith, under false pretenses, for the purpose of riding a corrupt back room monies gravy train.

Coldists are sell-outs to hyper-partisan Big Industry and radical think tanks, whose corrupt owners and self-aggrandizing member apparatchiks call their tune. Would that disinterested researchers of integrity had more 1/3500th of Coldists’ financing from any source… but for decades Gresham’s Law has acted to drive “good science” into total disrepute.

Over time, of course, the truth will out. Nature in fact cares nothing for the fatuous McIntyre or credentialed poseurs assiduously blighting everything they touch. As Planet Earth enters on a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum presaging the overdue end of our current 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch, global populations will discover that Coldists’ true agenda is a Luddite sociopathic war on civilization in itself. The sooner scrabrous political elites default to zero in disgrace, the better for everyone concerned.

REPLY: Either this is satire, or you are one seriously deluded individual. – Anthony

Used to subscribe to the Economist but let it lapse when it became clear that it was increasingly written by fresh-faced innocents straight out of uni.

And it boggle the mind to think that this once great supporter of free markets and traditional liberalism has become such a grubby cheerleader for statism. For god sakes they even threw their weight behind Obama and the largest expansion of state control in history.

Wren (10:44:47) :When I complained to my boss about the mistakes the reporter had made, he agreed the story was inaccurate, but thought it was more interesting than my article.

Could’ve been worse. About fifteen years ago, I had a helicopter decide that I needed some excitement in my life, and I had to make a pretty smoky emergency landing. The newspaper reported I *crashed*.

Took me almost ten minutes to convince my wife that I wasn’t calling from The Great Beyond.

Lewis said: “There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting.”

But my reaction was, “Is he REALLY THREATENING the author?”

What? Is he going to not give peer review in the future?

Have they gotten to the point of out-and-out threats?

And does this suggest that non-public threats have been occurring in the past? Why would he threaten unless he thought he had some way of injuring AND some power with which to affect the injury and make it stick.

I think we are somewhat inaccurate here at WUWT when we often note that, ‘You can’t make this stuff up.’

Apparently, Simon Lewis’ case, he ‘is just making stuff up’ in his complaint.

NOTE: I need a comical reprive, I have been spending a lot of serious study over on VS’s comment stream over at Bart Verheggen’s site. Boy, am I on a steep statistics learning curve. Pivotal issue being pursued . . .

I would suggest people read 1491, the book about the Americas before Columbus arrived.

It completely shatters so many myths about the pristine quality of the Americas. Especially worth noting is the chapter about the Amazon.

People are still under the spell of Betty Meggers, the Smithsonian archeologist who wrote in 1971 what has become the Bible of thought about the Amazon. She jumped to all kinds of conclusions about the fragility of the Amazon – claims that are turning out to be quite untrue. The Amazon was vastly more inhabited in the past than anyone thought until recently. It was, until the European diseases started decimating the populace. And they had farmed it for centuries and centuries.

The best bit is that they had developed terra preta do Indio, an man-made soil that covered large areas and which is probably the closest thing to nuclear fission that biology has ever seen, excepting possibly Polychromase Chain Reaction. Terra preta is a man-made soil with a high percentage of pottery shards and charcoal in it, that allows soil “to retain its nutrients for as much as a millennium.” Some estimates are that “up to 10% of the Amazon basin, an area the size of France” is terra preta, though most think it is less than 1% – but still enough to feed a population as large as the Mayans had in Central America to the northwest. And, contrary to the common information about the shallowness of the Amazon soils, terra preta is often two feet thick of massively productive soil, in some places SIX feet thick. Even in the U.S.’ heartland two-foot thick soil is not very common.

“…instead of destroying the soil, they improved it, and that is something we don’t know how to do today.” [emphasis in the original] That was archeologist Bruno Glaser being quoted.

This is not some obscure knowledge these days, either. When I went to tell my son about this, he cut me off and described it to me. He had studied it in his urban planning classes.

The Amazon is MUCH less fragile than Betty Meggers’ jumped-to conclusions. Later researchers are proving her view to be just plain wrong. Our belief in its pristine-ness is simply another conclusion she and others in her time jumped to, and people have it stuck in their heads. Most of us will probably carry that idea to the grave. But that doesn’t make it true. It is, in fact, false.

‘After having served in an excellent Police Force for 28 years I retired knowing one one truism about reporters: you cannot trust them at all. They are vultures preying on any mishap which might befall any member of the public.’

I’m sorry to have to spell it out, but your reasoning stems from projection. You’re actually using faulty logic to come to a conclusion. Figure that both you and the journalist asks for the truth from their respective “victim”. Add to that the pre-conceived notion of being right no matter what. Added the feeling of “deserving” an answer.

Sorry but poo-hoo, both police and journalists are vultures by your logic.

“REPLY: We are finishing up the final analysis sections. It’s late becuase we had to scrap the first paper, and re-purpose towards a response to Menne et al thanks to their professional discourtesy. – A”

Anthony, can you not just ignore their paper and publish your own? Or is this the way the game is played?

REPLY: Oh I could ignore it, but the 1st paper would have no rebuttal to Menne, and thus would be heavily criticised. – A

A rain forest is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall. How about that for a scientific breakthrough! What is missing is the evidence that global warming causing a reduction in rainfall in this area. What’s that you say, there is no evidence so far?

But there might be if warming continues? Where are the studies that show this? The computer climate models of course. Hmm.

The 40% claim is not actually referenced in the Rowell & Moore 2000 report (they use Nepstad to reference the specific figures in the next sentence). The Nepstad Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire, and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall. I don’t see how that can be the source of Rowell’s 40% claim. Its more likely an unreferenced statement by Rowell.

On your other query: in the near-term the fate of tropical forests will be largely determined by how much of it is destroyed to grow crops and biofuels, but the interactions between occasional droughts, warmer temperatures, and the remaining logged and fragmented forests will ultimately determine how much tropical rainforest is left by the end of this century.

My one line conclusion would be (unfortunately):

Both the IPCC paragraph and Rowell’s report are both sloppy when there is no need to be. The claim made can all be substantiated with reference to solid peer-reviewed papers.

harvey (16:02:35) :
[….]
REPLY: Either this is satire, or you are one seriously deluded individual. – Anthony

It’s no satire. He’s serious. He thinks that he’s Eli Rabbett’s companion playing the role of Harvey, the Púca who shapeshifted in the form of a giant rabbit spirit. Playing the role of a Púca, he makes prophecies, advises, and warns of doom and catastrophe in an effort to terrify people and thereby frighten them away from meeting harm.

Lewis seems to be acting stupidly. (I borrow the expression from Obama)

31 pages to complain about a little article? He doesn’t get it. Lewis teaches at Leeds and really knows less about the Amazon than he acts like. I am sure the good newspaper can respond to him in great detail using 2-3 words or less.

If I recall correctly, the head of the PCC in the UK is also the chair of the Daily Mail, and they’ve cooled considerably on AGW in recent months, haven’t they? Normal procedure for the PCC is deny anything was wrong, sweep it under the carpet and carry on regardless.

Lewis said: “There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting.”

They deserve careful and accurate science too. Which on the whole, Lewis seems to be engaged in.

Wars have two sides. Repercussions can be caused by warmist propaganda as much as by the outing of it for what it is by ‘legitimate doubters’.

Lewis says other peer reviewed papers support the IPCC assertion that 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be lost due to decreased rainfall.

Very well, let’s see his references, so we can assess their validity or otherwise under open peer review.

I believe the question is how Leake may have mislead Lewis, here is the curcial paragraph from his complaint:

“…I spoke to Jonathan Leake on the afternoon of Saturday 30, a few hours before the article went to press, as he wanted to check the quotes he was using by me (checking quotes was agreed between ourselves on Friday 29 January). The entire article was read to me, and quotes by me agreed, including a statement that the science in the IPCC report was and is correct. The article was reasonable, and quotes were not out of context. Indeed I was happy enough that I agreed to assist in checking the facts for the graphic to accompany the article (I can supply the emails if necessary). Yet, following this telephone call the article was entirely and completely re-written with an entirely new focus, new quotes from me included and new (incorrect) assertions of my views. I ask the Sunday Times to disclose the version of article that was read out to me, and provide an explanation as to why the agreed correct, undistorted, un-misleading article, and specifically the quotes from me, was not published, and an entirely new version produced.”

So what happened here? After reading him one version, another completely different one is published with different conclusions? He spoke to him a few hours prior to press, and then changed the entire thrust of the story. This is not a case of poor jounalistic standards, it’s misleading.

“Lewis showed why Samanta’s paper did not contradict the IPCC, even if it may have correctly identified an error in Saleska et al. Now Saleska has written to say that, actually, Samanta et al.’s results do not identify any error in their work: the results agree completely. With our apologies for the journalistic whiplash, Simon Lewis and I are convinced he’s right. The more general point though, is that the the balance of evidence shows that the Amazon is sensitive to drought, and the IPCC’s statements about it remain valid.”

The NYT is devoted to please it’s advertisers. I am sure they will make an adjustment to a paid Nieman Marcus advert with a misprint. They should. NM has a right to receive a correction.
Lewis is out of luck. Simon Lewis is like so irrelevant. News papers are sooo ambivalent to the emotional needs of the topics of their news. Get over it Simon.

James Cameron and Al Gore discuss future of the planet in Manaus
Writing UrbanPost of Sao Paulo

On 26 and 27 March, more than 300 businessmen, politicians, executives and researchers will meet in the Hotel Tropical Manaus
for the “International Forum on Sustainability. On the agenda is discussion about creating a commitment to sustainable development in the Amazon, and mechanisms to disseminate successful practices for the sustainable way and evaluate the economic and environmental value of the region.

On the first day, the opening event will be made by the researcher Thomas Lovejoy, then Al Gore goes to the podium for his presentation. On Saturday, it’s time for Governor Eduardo Braga and award-winning filmmaker James Camerom.

Al Gore

Albert Gore Jr. is just as renowned for his concern about climate change and for his political career. Ex-senator from Tennessee in 1990 and former U.S. vice president in the office of Bill Clinton (1993-2001), the Democrat won international renown in the presidential election U.S. 2000 to lose to Republican George W. Bush in a dubious vote count.

In fact, Al Gore as a political figure includes its position as an active member of environmental causes, such as the release of the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (An Incovenient Truth, 2006) with great merit demonstrated by the academy’s 2007 Oscar for best documentary and best original song. Apart from her plight as a cinematographic work, the film put the activist in front of the limelight even for the Nobel Peace Prize the same year that welcomed by his constant concern for the environment.

Since the 90’s, Al Gore has stood out as a writer with the publication of books related to green theme. In “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit” (1991) the latest “Our Choice” (2009), the Democrat still divides his time as chairman of some renowned institutions such as Generation Investment Management and Current TV.

James Cameron

The director, producer and screenwriter international blockbusters like Avatar (2009), Titanic (1997) and Alien (1986) also sets the benchmark for environmentalists.

Cameron, as a leading expert in environmental law, trade regulation and human rights, a member of the Committee on Environmental Law of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature and Nature Resourses), Direct Research on Global Environment and Trade at Yale University (USA), where is a senior member, and serves as professor of law at the College of Europe (Belgium). He was director of the Foundation for International Environmental Law (Field), participated actively in the negotiations of Eco-92 (RJ) following the development, among other things, the Kyoto Protocol. It provides also consulting services to governments, intergovernmental bodies and NGOs

Thomas Lovejoy

The scientist Thomas Lovejoy made his name with the creation of a concept widely applied among environmentalists – the so-called “biological diversity”. Released in the 80s, the term is still widely used to describe the variety of forests in the Amazon or try to explain phenomena such as Hurricane Katrina (New Orleans, USA).

Cite only the launch of a new term is redundant in the face of historical ecologist. Student is active in the Amazon for at least 40 years, pioneering research habitat fragmentation and current president of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and Environment (Washington).

He worked in several renowned institutions such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF – World Wildlife Fund) and the U.S. stood as the founder of a series for network TV called “Nature.” In 2004, the Tyler Prize winner for his involvement with the environment and served as an honorary member and advisor to scientific and environmental issues in the managements of Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

The scientist, still in the 80s, predicted a loss of 10 to 20% of all species on the planet by 2020 and published some works – from articles to books – which are important references in the scientific world.